Jailed Evans 'set to rejoin United'

Footballer Ched Evans, who was jailed for a raping a woman in a hotel room, will be welcomed back by Sheffield United when he is released from prison, according to a supporters' group.

Evans is due to be released in October after serving half of a five-year sentence imposed in April 2012.

His club has refused to comment on reports that he will be offered a new contract after he leaves prison but Alan Smith, from the official supporters' club, said he has been told Evans will be returning.

"I've been led to believe that is the case," he said.

"I've been told he will be back."

Mr Smith said he believes the majority of United fans will want Evans back despite an online petition of 59,000 people urging chairman Kevin McCabe to refuse to reinstate the 25-year-old striker.

"I think that for most supporters it's good he's coming back because of what he did for us before," he said.

"I think that he's served his time."

Mr Smith said he thought many United fans believed Evans was wrongly convicted.

The Welsh international was jailed for five years for raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room in North Wales.

Evans denied the offence but was found guilty by a jury at Caernarfon Crown Court.

He admitted having sex with her but the woman told the jury she had no memory of the incident.

The prosecution said the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was too drunk to consent to sexual intercourse.

Port Vale defender Clayton McDonald also admitted having sex with the victim but was found not guilty of the same charge.

An appeal against Evans's conviction was rejected by three judges at the Court of Appeal in 2012.

His girlfriend, Natasha Massey, has led a campaign to have the conviction overturned. She also believes he should be allowed to return to football even before any new appeal is heard.

Promoted stories

She said: "Ched should be allowed to return to work.

"At the moment we don't know which football club that would be with, but he loved playing for Sheffield United. He did so well there and he was happy there.

"At the end of the day, it's what he did before and he wants to return to work. It's part of the rehabilitation process."

Ms Massey said Evans was keeping fit in prison and spending time preparing for his second appeal.

She said: "He's preparing to come home. All Ched wants is to clear his name. We've put in a second appeal and he's focused on that."

A Sheffield United spokesman said the club would not be commenting on the Evans situation today.

Share article

Jean Hatchet, whose online petition calling on Sheffield United not to reinstate Evans as a player at the club has received more than 61,000 signatures, told BBC Radio 4's PM programme: "I think it's crucial young people are given the right messages about sexual consent and rape - they should be given that in school obviously but the media and sport have a responsibility for that too.

"And reinstating Ched Evans in exactly the same prestigious and privileged position that he occupied before he raped a woman is a very dangerous message about the consequences of raping a woman in our society."

Promoted Stories

Comments (45)

He didn't rape her. He should be welcomed back to the fold with open arms.

He didn't rape her.
He should be welcomed back to the fold with open arms.stevo!!

He didn't rape her. He should be welcomed back to the fold with open arms.

Score: -16

llos25 says...11:40am Wed 13 Aug 14

He was found guilty or is that your opinion.I think his public career is over his peers on the terraces will see to that.

He was found guilty or is that your opinion.I think his public career is over his peers on the terraces will see to that.llos25

He was found guilty or is that your opinion.I think his public career is over his peers on the terraces will see to that.

Score: 1

crackoneoff says...12:00pm Wed 13 Aug 14

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down.
Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth.
There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.crackoneoff

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

Score: 2

stevo!! says...12:24pm Wed 13 Aug 14

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

[quote][p][bold]crackoneoff[/bold] wrote:
What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down.
Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth.
There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.[/p][/quote]I agree.
Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration?
Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald.
No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.stevo!!

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

Score: -5

sarfhamton says...12:52pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Not the sort of guy I would want my kids to go and watch play football.

Not the sort of guy I would want my kids to go and watch play football.sarfhamton

Not the sort of guy I would want my kids to go and watch play football.

Score: 9

ThinkBrighton says...1:00pm Wed 13 Aug 14

It's nice to hear about a club with a good family attitude, perhaps they will get Stuart Hall to be their match day commentator and Rolf Harris as their greeter

It's nice to hear about a club with a good family attitude, perhaps they will get Stuart Hall to be their match day commentator and Rolf Harris as their greeterThinkBrighton

It's nice to hear about a club with a good family attitude, perhaps they will get Stuart Hall to be their match day commentator and Rolf Harris as their greeter

Score: 9

pauls55 says...1:13pm Wed 13 Aug 14

stevo!! wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.

[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]crackoneoff[/bold] wrote: What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.[/p][/quote]I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.[/p][/quote]Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.pauls55

stevo!! wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.

Score: 10

stevo!! says...1:20pm Wed 13 Aug 14

sarfhamton wrote…

Not the sort of guy I would want my kids to go and watch play football.

And would you take them to watch McDonald?

[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
Not the sort of guy I would want my kids to go and watch play football.[/p][/quote]And would you take them to watch McDonald?stevo!!

sarfhamton wrote…

Not the sort of guy I would want my kids to go and watch play football.

And would you take them to watch McDonald?

Score: -4

stevo!! says...1:22pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pauls55 wrote…

stevo!! wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.

So why no conviction for McDonald, who did EXACTLY the same to exactly the same woman? She obviously pressed charges against him, and he admitted to having sex with her. So why the different verdicts? They were either both guilty or they were both innocent.

[quote][p][bold]pauls55[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]crackoneoff[/bold] wrote: What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.[/p][/quote]I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.[/p][/quote]Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.[/p][/quote]So why no conviction for McDonald, who did EXACTLY the same to exactly the same woman?
She obviously pressed charges against him, and he admitted to having sex with her.
So why the different verdicts? They were either both guilty or they were both innocent.stevo!!

pauls55 wrote…

stevo!! wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.

So why no conviction for McDonald, who did EXACTLY the same to exactly the same woman? She obviously pressed charges against him, and he admitted to having sex with her. So why the different verdicts? They were either both guilty or they were both innocent.

Score: 1

petesmuk says...2:15pm Wed 13 Aug 14

The moral of this story is: always get a woman to sign a consent form before you have sex with her. (I'm thinking of starting a business selling 'Full penetration' consent forms in packs of 50.). Maybe have it countersigned by 2 witnesses as well.

The moral of this story is: always get a woman to sign a consent form before you have sex with her. (I'm thinking of starting a business selling 'Full penetration' consent forms in packs of 50.). Maybe have it countersigned by 2 witnesses as well.petesmuk

The moral of this story is: always get a woman to sign a consent form before you have sex with her. (I'm thinking of starting a business selling 'Full penetration' consent forms in packs of 50.). Maybe have it countersigned by 2 witnesses as well.

Score: 3

BigFigure says...2:19pm Wed 13 Aug 14

She went voluntarily with MacDonald, but Evans later used deceit to get a key to the room,enter whilst she was having consensual sex, then joined in,had his mates film the incident through the window, then legged it out the fire exit when he'd finished. Two hearings found him guilty of rape.

She went voluntarily with MacDonald, but Evans later used deceit to get a key to the room,enter whilst she was having consensual sex, then joined in,had his mates film the incident through the window, then legged it out the fire exit when he'd finished. Two hearings found him guilty of rape.BigFigure

She went voluntarily with MacDonald, but Evans later used deceit to get a key to the room,enter whilst she was having consensual sex, then joined in,had his mates film the incident through the window, then legged it out the fire exit when he'd finished. Two hearings found him guilty of rape.

Score: 4

stevo!! says...2:59pm Wed 13 Aug 14

BigFigure wrote…

She went voluntarily with MacDonald, but Evans later used deceit to get a key to the room,enter whilst she was having consensual sex, then joined in,had his mates film the incident through the window, then legged it out the fire exit when he'd finished. Two hearings found him guilty of rape.

If she was having consensual sex with McDonald, as you claim, then how come McDonald ended up on a rape charge?

[quote][p][bold]BigFigure[/bold] wrote:
She went voluntarily with MacDonald, but Evans later used deceit to get a key to the room,enter whilst she was having consensual sex, then joined in,had his mates film the incident through the window, then legged it out the fire exit when he'd finished. Two hearings found him guilty of rape.[/p][/quote]If she was having consensual sex with McDonald, as you claim, then how come McDonald ended up on a rape charge?stevo!!

BigFigure wrote…

She went voluntarily with MacDonald, but Evans later used deceit to get a key to the room,enter whilst she was having consensual sex, then joined in,had his mates film the incident through the window, then legged it out the fire exit when he'd finished. Two hearings found him guilty of rape.

If she was having consensual sex with McDonald, as you claim, then how come McDonald ended up on a rape charge?

Score: 1

crackoneoff says...3:13pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pauls55 wrote…

stevo!! wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.

Sorry mate but you will find that throughout history that British justice has a lot of very bad flaws just look at the people that have swung on the end off a noose and have proven to be innocent. Try not to be to nieve with your comments that's a good chap.

[quote][p][bold]pauls55[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]crackoneoff[/bold] wrote: What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.[/p][/quote]I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.[/p][/quote]Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.[/p][/quote]Sorry mate but you will find that throughout history that British justice has a lot of very bad flaws just look at the people that have swung on the end off a noose and have proven to be innocent.
Try not to be to nieve with your comments that's a good chap.crackoneoff

pauls55 wrote…

stevo!! wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.

Sorry mate but you will find that throughout history that British justice has a lot of very bad flaws just look at the people that have swung on the end off a noose and have proven to be innocent. Try not to be to nieve with your comments that's a good chap.

Score: 2

G_Whiz says...3:21pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Ok So maybe Stevo thinks rape is understandable, if the girl is drunk. - but i'm sure most deplore the actions of Evan's. Rape is one of the crimes that is rising rapidly - and it does not help when people crawl out of the woodwork trying to defend it! Let's look after our kids eh! not defend those sicko's who do harm!

Ok So maybe Stevo thinks rape is understandable, if the girl is drunk. - but i'm sure most deplore the actions of Evan's. Rape is one of the crimes that is rising rapidly - and it does not help when people crawl out of the woodwork trying to defend it!
Let's look after our kids eh! not defend those sicko's who do harm!G_Whiz

Ok So maybe Stevo thinks rape is understandable, if the girl is drunk. - but i'm sure most deplore the actions of Evan's. Rape is one of the crimes that is rising rapidly - and it does not help when people crawl out of the woodwork trying to defend it! Let's look after our kids eh! not defend those sicko's who do harm!

Score: 3

stevo!! says...3:41pm Wed 13 Aug 14

G_Whiz wrote…

Ok So maybe Stevo thinks rape is understandable, if the girl is drunk. - but i'm sure most deplore the actions of Evan's. Rape is one of the crimes that is rising rapidly - and it does not help when people crawl out of the woodwork trying to defend it! Let's look after our kids eh! not defend those sicko's who do harm!

" Stevo thinks rape is understandable" Quote any statements of mine which indicate that. I'll take your impending failure to do so to be an admission that you're a lying, ignorant sack of sh*t You're welcome.

[quote][p][bold]G_Whiz[/bold] wrote:
Ok So maybe Stevo thinks rape is understandable, if the girl is drunk. - but i'm sure most deplore the actions of Evan's. Rape is one of the crimes that is rising rapidly - and it does not help when people crawl out of the woodwork trying to defend it!
Let's look after our kids eh! not defend those sicko's who do harm![/p][/quote]" Stevo thinks rape is understandable"
Quote any statements of mine which indicate that.
I'll take your impending failure to do so to be an admission that you're a lying, ignorant sack of sh*t
You're welcome.stevo!!

G_Whiz wrote…

Ok So maybe Stevo thinks rape is understandable, if the girl is drunk. - but i'm sure most deplore the actions of Evan's. Rape is one of the crimes that is rising rapidly - and it does not help when people crawl out of the woodwork trying to defend it! Let's look after our kids eh! not defend those sicko's who do harm!

" Stevo thinks rape is understandable" Quote any statements of mine which indicate that. I'll take your impending failure to do so to be an admission that you're a lying, ignorant sack of sh*t You're welcome.

Score: -2

stevo!! says...3:42pm Wed 13 Aug 14

"Rape is one of the crimes that is rising rapidly - and it does not help when people crawl out of the woodwork trying to defend it" Pointing out instances of where a rape clearly didn't occur isn't 'defending' the act of rape.

"Rape is one of the crimes that is rising rapidly - and it does not help when people crawl out of the woodwork trying to defend it"
Pointing out instances of where a rape clearly didn't occur isn't 'defending' the act of rape.stevo!!

"Rape is one of the crimes that is rising rapidly - and it does not help when people crawl out of the woodwork trying to defend it" Pointing out instances of where a rape clearly didn't occur isn't 'defending' the act of rape.

Score: 2

pauls55 says...3:43pm Wed 13 Aug 14

So Sheffield united will soon be encouraging their young female fans to cheer on a convicted rapist. Really???

So Sheffield united will soon be encouraging their young female fans to cheer on a convicted rapist. Really???pauls55

So Sheffield united will soon be encouraging their young female fans to cheer on a convicted rapist. Really???

Score: 0

stevo!! says...3:48pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pauls55 wrote…

So Sheffield united will soon be encouraging their young female fans to cheer on a convicted rapist. Really???

One who was falsely convicted in the eyes of many.

[quote][p][bold]pauls55[/bold] wrote:
So Sheffield united will soon be encouraging their young female fans to cheer on a convicted rapist. Really???[/p][/quote]One who was falsely convicted in the eyes of many.stevo!!

pauls55 wrote…

So Sheffield united will soon be encouraging their young female fans to cheer on a convicted rapist. Really???

One who was falsely convicted in the eyes of many.

Score: -5

stevo!! says...4:42pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Having read various transcripts from the trial, I am amazed that the case even reached court. The woman claimed she had had her drinks spiked, but at the trial admitted drinking two-thirds of a bottle of wine, a shot of Sambucca and four double-vodkas. Who would need to spike anything? She was plainly out to get hammered. She wasn't even with the footballers at this time, so even if her drinks had been spiked, they weren't responsible. She claimed to being dazed and confused yet remembers the trip to the pizza shop where she tried to playfully sneak some pizza from a guy. She bumped into McDonald near a kebab shop, and chose to remain with him for the rest of the night. She voluntarily went back to the hotel with McDonald, and the court accepted that there was no evidence of any 'force' at any time. Her clothes were carefully removed in the hotel room, and she was naked. "She told police: "I felt tipsy but not out of control." Which means that she told the police she was in control. When the defence put it to her: " "You gave no indication to either man you didn't want to have sex." " She replied, in court: "I don't remember." So she admits that she doesn't know whether or not she told either of them that sex wasn't on the cards. I can fully understand why McDonald was found 'not guilty'. CCTV showed her in his company during the evening plainly enjoying the experience, and the taxi driver reported nothing untoward. Hotel CCTV will also have supported his claim that she was there voluntarily with him. He believed she had given consent, and the jury believed him. BTW, consent doesn't have to be verbal or in writing. In fact, McDonald was so comfortable with the situation, he got in touch with Evans telling him to come along and watch the fun. Evans came and watched as his mate had sex. They claim that they asked if Evans could join in, and that she said 'yes'. And the question remains........why was Evans convicted but not McDonald?

Having read various transcripts from the trial, I am amazed that the case even reached court.
The woman claimed she had had her drinks spiked, but at the trial admitted drinking two-thirds of a bottle of wine, a shot of Sambucca and four double-vodkas. Who would need to spike anything? She was plainly out to get hammered.
She wasn't even with the footballers at this time, so even if her drinks had been spiked, they weren't responsible.
She claimed to being dazed and confused yet remembers the trip to the pizza shop where she tried to playfully sneak some pizza from a guy. She bumped into McDonald near a kebab shop, and chose to remain with him for the rest of the night.
She voluntarily went back to the hotel with McDonald, and the court accepted that there was no evidence of any 'force' at any time. Her clothes were carefully removed in the hotel room, and she was naked.
"She told police: "I felt tipsy but not out of control."
Which means that she told the police she was in control. When the defence put it to her:
" "You gave no indication to either man you didn't want to have sex." "
She replied, in court:
"I don't remember."
So she admits that she doesn't know whether or not she told either of them that sex wasn't on the cards.
I can fully understand why McDonald was found 'not guilty'. CCTV showed her in his company during the evening plainly enjoying the experience, and the taxi driver reported nothing untoward. Hotel CCTV will also have supported his claim that she was there voluntarily with him. He believed she had given consent, and the jury believed him.
BTW, consent doesn't have to be verbal or in writing.
In fact, McDonald was so comfortable with the situation, he got in touch with Evans telling him to come along and watch the fun. Evans came and watched as his mate had sex. They claim that they asked if Evans could join in, and that she said 'yes'.
And the question remains........why was Evans convicted but not McDonald?stevo!!

Having read various transcripts from the trial, I am amazed that the case even reached court. The woman claimed she had had her drinks spiked, but at the trial admitted drinking two-thirds of a bottle of wine, a shot of Sambucca and four double-vodkas. Who would need to spike anything? She was plainly out to get hammered. She wasn't even with the footballers at this time, so even if her drinks had been spiked, they weren't responsible. She claimed to being dazed and confused yet remembers the trip to the pizza shop where she tried to playfully sneak some pizza from a guy. She bumped into McDonald near a kebab shop, and chose to remain with him for the rest of the night. She voluntarily went back to the hotel with McDonald, and the court accepted that there was no evidence of any 'force' at any time. Her clothes were carefully removed in the hotel room, and she was naked. "She told police: "I felt tipsy but not out of control." Which means that she told the police she was in control. When the defence put it to her: " "You gave no indication to either man you didn't want to have sex." " She replied, in court: "I don't remember." So she admits that she doesn't know whether or not she told either of them that sex wasn't on the cards. I can fully understand why McDonald was found 'not guilty'. CCTV showed her in his company during the evening plainly enjoying the experience, and the taxi driver reported nothing untoward. Hotel CCTV will also have supported his claim that she was there voluntarily with him. He believed she had given consent, and the jury believed him. BTW, consent doesn't have to be verbal or in writing. In fact, McDonald was so comfortable with the situation, he got in touch with Evans telling him to come along and watch the fun. Evans came and watched as his mate had sex. They claim that they asked if Evans could join in, and that she said 'yes'. And the question remains........why was Evans convicted but not McDonald?

Score: 0

llos25 says...5:06pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Were you at the trial if not shut up .

Were you at the trial if not shut up .llos25

Were you at the trial if not shut up .

Score: 3

stevo!! says...5:09pm Wed 13 Aug 14

llos25 wrote…

Were you at the trial if not shut up .

The transcripts are in the public domain, so anyone can comment upon them IF they have the brains. I take it you won't be doing so.

[quote][p][bold]llos25[/bold] wrote:
Were you at the trial if not shut up .[/p][/quote]The transcripts are in the public domain, so anyone can comment upon them IF they have the brains.
I take it you won't be doing so.stevo!!

llos25 wrote…

Were you at the trial if not shut up .

The transcripts are in the public domain, so anyone can comment upon them IF they have the brains. I take it you won't be doing so.

Score: -3

crackoneoff says...5:11pm Wed 13 Aug 14

thanks stevo i myself hate rapists but i dont like are allegations off rape and after all there is no concrete evidence in this case only circumstantial evidence which we all know that british justice has sent many innocent men to prison or even worse to hang. there was no cctv cameras nor was there any witnesses in that hotel room so can you please explain to me how on earth was he convicted off this ,if there was some evidence of this than i would expect him to be convicted but at the end of the day it came down to his word against hers. i

thanks stevo i myself hate rapists but i dont like are allegations off rape and after all there is no concrete evidence in this case only circumstantial evidence which we all know that british justice has sent many innocent men to prison or even worse to hang.
there was no cctv cameras nor was there any witnesses in that hotel room so can you please explain to me how on earth was he convicted off this
,if there was some evidence of this than i would expect him to be convicted but at the end of the day it came down to his word against hers.
icrackoneoff

thanks stevo i myself hate rapists but i dont like are allegations off rape and after all there is no concrete evidence in this case only circumstantial evidence which we all know that british justice has sent many innocent men to prison or even worse to hang. there was no cctv cameras nor was there any witnesses in that hotel room so can you please explain to me how on earth was he convicted off this ,if there was some evidence of this than i would expect him to be convicted but at the end of the day it came down to his word against hers. i

Score: 1

crackoneoff says...5:13pm Wed 13 Aug 14

llos25 wrote…

Were you at the trial if not shut up .

i myself believe in free speech and opinions obviously you are dumb and stupid ...so do one idiot

[quote][p][bold]llos25[/bold] wrote:
Were you at the trial if not shut up .[/p][/quote]i myself believe in free speech and opinions obviously you are dumb and stupid ...so do one idiotcrackoneoff

llos25 wrote…

Were you at the trial if not shut up .

i myself believe in free speech and opinions obviously you are dumb and stupid ...so do one idiot

Score: -2

Mary80 says...6:21pm Wed 13 Aug 14

crackoneoff wrote…

thanks stevo i myself hate rapists but i dont like are allegations off rape and after all there is no concrete evidence in this case only circumstantial evidence which we all know that british justice has sent many innocent men to prison or even worse to hang. there was no cctv cameras nor was there any witnesses in that hotel room so can you please explain to me how on earth was he convicted off this ,if there was some evidence of this than i would expect him to be convicted but at the end of the day it came down to his word against hers. i

There's an Italian case Sarah Scazzi her uncle murdered her, but her cousin and the cousin's mum were arrested on the most flimsy evidence they had ZERO evidence, yet a month ago both found guilty. Courts can make horrible decisions based on nothing. The italian case had a witness claim they had a DREAM of the girl getting dragged away by the cousin and mum....so stay the eff outta Italy

[quote][p][bold]crackoneoff[/bold] wrote:
thanks stevo i myself hate rapists but i dont like are allegations off rape and after all there is no concrete evidence in this case only circumstantial evidence which we all know that british justice has sent many innocent men to prison or even worse to hang.
there was no cctv cameras nor was there any witnesses in that hotel room so can you please explain to me how on earth was he convicted off this
,if there was some evidence of this than i would expect him to be convicted but at the end of the day it came down to his word against hers.
i[/p][/quote]There's an Italian case Sarah Scazzi her uncle murdered her, but her cousin and the cousin's mum were arrested on the most flimsy evidence they had ZERO evidence, yet a month ago both found guilty. Courts can make horrible decisions based on nothing.
The italian case had a witness claim they had a DREAM of the girl getting dragged away by the cousin and mum....so stay the eff outta ItalyMary80

crackoneoff wrote…

thanks stevo i myself hate rapists but i dont like are allegations off rape and after all there is no concrete evidence in this case only circumstantial evidence which we all know that british justice has sent many innocent men to prison or even worse to hang. there was no cctv cameras nor was there any witnesses in that hotel room so can you please explain to me how on earth was he convicted off this ,if there was some evidence of this than i would expect him to be convicted but at the end of the day it came down to his word against hers. i

There's an Italian case Sarah Scazzi her uncle murdered her, but her cousin and the cousin's mum were arrested on the most flimsy evidence they had ZERO evidence, yet a month ago both found guilty. Courts can make horrible decisions based on nothing. The italian case had a witness claim they had a DREAM of the girl getting dragged away by the cousin and mum....so stay the eff outta Italy

Score: -1

crackoneoff says...6:57pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Mary80 wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

thanks stevo i myself hate rapists but i dont like are allegations off rape and after all there is no concrete evidence in this case only circumstantial evidence which we all know that british justice has sent many innocent men to prison or even worse to hang. there was no cctv cameras nor was there any witnesses in that hotel room so can you please explain to me how on earth was he convicted off this ,if there was some evidence of this than i would expect him to be convicted but at the end of the day it came down to his word against hers. i

There's an Italian case Sarah Scazzi her uncle murdered her, but her cousin and the cousin's mum were arrested on the most flimsy evidence they had ZERO evidence, yet a month ago both found guilty. Courts can make horrible decisions based on nothing. The italian case had a witness claim they had a DREAM of the girl getting dragged away by the cousin and mum....so stay the eff outta Italy

Mary that is kinda scary as it happens I am just watching this on the ci channel and i just happened to check my phone what a coincidence. I personally thought it was Sabrina after 20 mins until the mobile was found . There again poor Merediths case was never really resolved.

[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]crackoneoff[/bold] wrote:
thanks stevo i myself hate rapists but i dont like are allegations off rape and after all there is no concrete evidence in this case only circumstantial evidence which we all know that british justice has sent many innocent men to prison or even worse to hang.
there was no cctv cameras nor was there any witnesses in that hotel room so can you please explain to me how on earth was he convicted off this
,if there was some evidence of this than i would expect him to be convicted but at the end of the day it came down to his word against hers.
i[/p][/quote]There's an Italian case Sarah Scazzi her uncle murdered her, but her cousin and the cousin's mum were arrested on the most flimsy evidence they had ZERO evidence, yet a month ago both found guilty. Courts can make horrible decisions based on nothing.
The italian case had a witness claim they had a DREAM of the girl getting dragged away by the cousin and mum....so stay the eff outta Italy[/p][/quote]Mary that is kinda scary as it happens I am just watching this on the ci channel and i just happened to check my phone what a coincidence.
I personally thought it was Sabrina after 20 mins until the mobile was found .
There again poor Merediths case was never really resolved.crackoneoff

Mary80 wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

thanks stevo i myself hate rapists but i dont like are allegations off rape and after all there is no concrete evidence in this case only circumstantial evidence which we all know that british justice has sent many innocent men to prison or even worse to hang. there was no cctv cameras nor was there any witnesses in that hotel room so can you please explain to me how on earth was he convicted off this ,if there was some evidence of this than i would expect him to be convicted but at the end of the day it came down to his word against hers. i

There's an Italian case Sarah Scazzi her uncle murdered her, but her cousin and the cousin's mum were arrested on the most flimsy evidence they had ZERO evidence, yet a month ago both found guilty. Courts can make horrible decisions based on nothing. The italian case had a witness claim they had a DREAM of the girl getting dragged away by the cousin and mum....so stay the eff outta Italy

Mary that is kinda scary as it happens I am just watching this on the ci channel and i just happened to check my phone what a coincidence. I personally thought it was Sabrina after 20 mins until the mobile was found . There again poor Merediths case was never really resolved.

Score: -1

Counterview says...7:27pm Wed 13 Aug 14

pauls55 wrote…

stevo!! wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.

So you - who did not hear the evidence - are right. Twelve jurors - who heard all the evidence - are wrong. If you allow prejudice to prevail over evidence, I hope you never have to sit on a jury.

[quote][p][bold]pauls55[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]crackoneoff[/bold] wrote: What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.[/p][/quote]I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.[/p][/quote]Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.[/p][/quote]So you - who did not hear the evidence - are right. Twelve jurors - who heard all the evidence - are wrong. If you allow prejudice to prevail over evidence, I hope you never have to sit on a jury.Counterview

pauls55 wrote…

stevo!! wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.

So you - who did not hear the evidence - are right. Twelve jurors - who heard all the evidence - are wrong. If you allow prejudice to prevail over evidence, I hope you never have to sit on a jury.

Score: 4

stevo!! says...8:28pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Counterview wrote…

pauls55 wrote…

stevo!! wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.

So you - who did not hear the evidence - are right. Twelve jurors - who heard all the evidence - are wrong. If you allow prejudice to prevail over evidence, I hope you never have to sit on a jury.

"So you - who did not hear the evidence - are right. Twelve jurors - who heard all the evidence - are wrong." Yes. If I were wrong, then those jurors would also have convicted McDonald. They didn't. They decided that even though the woman had accused him, there was no evidence to suggest that the sex wasn't consensual. So what was different about the evidence relating to Evans? Nothing. The jurors decided that she HAD consented to sex with McDonald, which means that her claim that he raped her was a lie in their opinion. So we had a jury examining the case against Evans looking at the claim of a proven liar (proven by that jury, funnily enough) and deciding that her actions hadn't been consent. I can see why. He came to the room later. She didn't go there with him. " If you allow prejudice to prevail over evidence.." I never do that. All my comments are based on what is presented to me, as I have shown in this thread.

[quote][p][bold]Counterview[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]pauls55[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]crackoneoff[/bold] wrote: What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.[/p][/quote]I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.[/p][/quote]Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.[/p][/quote]So you - who did not hear the evidence - are right. Twelve jurors - who heard all the evidence - are wrong. If you allow prejudice to prevail over evidence, I hope you never have to sit on a jury.[/p][/quote]"So you - who did not hear the evidence - are right. Twelve jurors - who heard all the evidence - are wrong."
Yes.
If I were wrong, then those jurors would also have convicted McDonald.
They didn't.
They decided that even though the woman had accused him, there was no evidence to suggest that the sex wasn't consensual.
So what was different about the evidence relating to Evans?
Nothing.
The jurors decided that she HAD consented to sex with McDonald, which means that her claim that he raped her was a lie in their opinion.
So we had a jury examining the case against Evans looking at the claim of a proven liar (proven by that jury, funnily enough) and deciding that her actions hadn't been consent.
I can see why. He came to the room later. She didn't go there with him.
" If you allow prejudice to prevail over evidence.."
I never do that.
All my comments are based on what is presented to me, as I have shown in this thread.stevo!!

Counterview wrote…

pauls55 wrote…

stevo!! wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.

So you - who did not hear the evidence - are right. Twelve jurors - who heard all the evidence - are wrong. If you allow prejudice to prevail over evidence, I hope you never have to sit on a jury.

"So you - who did not hear the evidence - are right. Twelve jurors - who heard all the evidence - are wrong." Yes. If I were wrong, then those jurors would also have convicted McDonald. They didn't. They decided that even though the woman had accused him, there was no evidence to suggest that the sex wasn't consensual. So what was different about the evidence relating to Evans? Nothing. The jurors decided that she HAD consented to sex with McDonald, which means that her claim that he raped her was a lie in their opinion. So we had a jury examining the case against Evans looking at the claim of a proven liar (proven by that jury, funnily enough) and deciding that her actions hadn't been consent. I can see why. He came to the room later. She didn't go there with him. " If you allow prejudice to prevail over evidence.." I never do that. All my comments are based on what is presented to me, as I have shown in this thread.

Score: -2

crackoneoff says...8:51pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Counterview wrote…

pauls55 wrote…

stevo!! wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.

So you - who did not hear the evidence - are right. Twelve jurors - who heard all the evidence - are wrong. If you allow prejudice to prevail over evidence, I hope you never have to sit on a jury.

I think we can go round and round with this one I personally don't see ya point I also don't think you have read what I stated property you keep referring to the judge and juries decision. For such a high profile case they never stated conclusively what actually nailed him with concrete evidence I mean guilty by all reasonable doubt that sent him down for a few year stretch which leads me to believe that it was a flimsy case. Oh and by the way I would love to be on the jury because I have my own opinions which are fair not like the other sheep on here. Bahhhhhhhh

[quote][p][bold]Counterview[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]pauls55[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]crackoneoff[/bold] wrote: What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.[/p][/quote]I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.[/p][/quote]Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.[/p][/quote]So you - who did not hear the evidence - are right. Twelve jurors - who heard all the evidence - are wrong. If you allow prejudice to prevail over evidence, I hope you never have to sit on a jury.[/p][/quote]I think we can go round and round with this one I personally don't see ya point I also don't think you have read what I stated property you keep referring to the judge and juries decision.
For such a high profile case they never stated conclusively what actually nailed him with concrete evidence I mean guilty by all reasonable doubt that sent him down for a few year stretch which leads me to believe that it was a flimsy case.
Oh and by the way I would love to be on the jury because I have my own opinions which are fair not like the other sheep on here.
Bahhhhhhhhcrackoneoff

Counterview wrote…

pauls55 wrote…

stevo!! wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.

So you - who did not hear the evidence - are right. Twelve jurors - who heard all the evidence - are wrong. If you allow prejudice to prevail over evidence, I hope you never have to sit on a jury.

I think we can go round and round with this one I personally don't see ya point I also don't think you have read what I stated property you keep referring to the judge and juries decision. For such a high profile case they never stated conclusively what actually nailed him with concrete evidence I mean guilty by all reasonable doubt that sent him down for a few year stretch which leads me to believe that it was a flimsy case. Oh and by the way I would love to be on the jury because I have my own opinions which are fair not like the other sheep on here. Bahhhhhhhh

Score: -1

stevo!! says...9:01pm Wed 13 Aug 14

crackoneoff wrote…

Counterview wrote…

pauls55 wrote…

stevo!! wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.

So you - who did not hear the evidence - are right. Twelve jurors - who heard all the evidence - are wrong. If you allow prejudice to prevail over evidence, I hope you never have to sit on a jury.

I think we can go round and round with this one I personally don't see ya point I also don't think you have read what I stated property you keep referring to the judge and juries decision. For such a high profile case they never stated conclusively what actually nailed him with concrete evidence I mean guilty by all reasonable doubt that sent him down for a few year stretch which leads me to believe that it was a flimsy case. Oh and by the way I would love to be on the jury because I have my own opinions which are fair not like the other sheep on here. Bahhhhhhhh

There wasn't a case for him to answer, and the same went for McDonald. Drunken woman (who later claims that her drinks had been spiked) admits to drinking enough to fell a sailor, meets handsome healthy footballer after flirting with bloke in pizza parlour, goes back to footballer's hotel room after admitting to being in control, gets undressed in his hotel room, lets him f*ck her, lets his mate watch then f*ck her too, then gets taken home in taxi, wakes up next morning feeling dirty, and makes false rape claim against one of them.....

[quote][p][bold]crackoneoff[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Counterview[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]pauls55[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]crackoneoff[/bold] wrote: What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.[/p][/quote]I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.[/p][/quote]Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.[/p][/quote]So you - who did not hear the evidence - are right. Twelve jurors - who heard all the evidence - are wrong. If you allow prejudice to prevail over evidence, I hope you never have to sit on a jury.[/p][/quote]I think we can go round and round with this one I personally don't see ya point I also don't think you have read what I stated property you keep referring to the judge and juries decision.
For such a high profile case they never stated conclusively what actually nailed him with concrete evidence I mean guilty by all reasonable doubt that sent him down for a few year stretch which leads me to believe that it was a flimsy case.
Oh and by the way I would love to be on the jury because I have my own opinions which are fair not like the other sheep on here.
Bahhhhhhhh[/p][/quote]There wasn't a case for him to answer, and the same went for McDonald.
Drunken woman (who later claims that her drinks had been spiked) admits to drinking enough to fell a sailor, meets handsome healthy footballer after flirting with bloke in pizza parlour, goes back to footballer's hotel room after admitting to being in control, gets undressed in his hotel room, lets him f*ck her, lets his mate watch then f*ck her too, then gets taken home in taxi, wakes up next morning feeling dirty, and makes false rape claim against one of them.....stevo!!

crackoneoff wrote…

Counterview wrote…

pauls55 wrote…

stevo!! wrote…

crackoneoff wrote…

What I don't understand is 2 guys had sex with her whilst she was intoxicated so why on earth did only 1 go down. Also it was a case of her word against as he pointed out that she was a willing participant so why on earth did the jury believe her word was the absolute truth. There is something about this case that seems to have no solid evidence but a guy goes to prison all the same.

I agree. Besides, if she cannot recall the incident, isn't also fair to claim that she couldn't recall consenting to Evans's penetration? Also, in many cases, a rape charge has been dismissed purely on the basis that placing oneself in a situation that was likely to lead to sex means that consent had already been given. This is proven by the lack of a conviction for McDonald. No, she wasn't raped. She was voluntarily in a bedroom with two guys, both of whom thought she was there for sex with them.

Sorry but he was found guilty at the trial and three other judges reviewed case and he was still found guilty. Cherry picking evidence from newpaper reports is not the same as having all the evidence in front of you like the jury and judges had who were both convinced he was guilty.

So you - who did not hear the evidence - are right. Twelve jurors - who heard all the evidence - are wrong. If you allow prejudice to prevail over evidence, I hope you never have to sit on a jury.

I think we can go round and round with this one I personally don't see ya point I also don't think you have read what I stated property you keep referring to the judge and juries decision. For such a high profile case they never stated conclusively what actually nailed him with concrete evidence I mean guilty by all reasonable doubt that sent him down for a few year stretch which leads me to believe that it was a flimsy case. Oh and by the way I would love to be on the jury because I have my own opinions which are fair not like the other sheep on here. Bahhhhhhhh

There wasn't a case for him to answer, and the same went for McDonald. Drunken woman (who later claims that her drinks had been spiked) admits to drinking enough to fell a sailor, meets handsome healthy footballer after flirting with bloke in pizza parlour, goes back to footballer's hotel room after admitting to being in control, gets undressed in his hotel room, lets him f*ck her, lets his mate watch then f*ck her too, then gets taken home in taxi, wakes up next morning feeling dirty, and makes false rape claim against one of them.....

Score: 0

crackoneoff says...9:08pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Sounds about right

Sounds about rightcrackoneoff

Sounds about right

Score: -1

Rocksalt says...9:50pm Wed 13 Aug 14

stevo!! wrote…

Having read various transcripts from the trial, I am amazed that the case even reached court. The woman claimed she had had her drinks spiked, but at the trial admitted drinking two-thirds of a bottle of wine, a shot of Sambucca and four double-vodkas. Who would need to spike anything? She was plainly out to get hammered. She wasn't even with the footballers at this time, so even if her drinks had been spiked, they weren't responsible. She claimed to being dazed and confused yet remembers the trip to the pizza shop where she tried to playfully sneak some pizza from a guy. She bumped into McDonald near a kebab shop, and chose to remain with him for the rest of the night. She voluntarily went back to the hotel with McDonald, and the court accepted that there was no evidence of any 'force' at any time. Her clothes were carefully removed in the hotel room, and she was naked. "She told police: "I felt tipsy but not out of control." Which means that she told the police she was in control. When the defence put it to her: " "You gave no indication to either man you didn't want to have sex." " She replied, in court: "I don't remember." So she admits that she doesn't know whether or not she told either of them that sex wasn't on the cards. I can fully understand why McDonald was found 'not guilty'. CCTV showed her in his company during the evening plainly enjoying the experience, and the taxi driver reported nothing untoward. Hotel CCTV will also have supported his claim that she was there voluntarily with him. He believed she had given consent, and the jury believed him. BTW, consent doesn't have to be verbal or in writing. In fact, McDonald was so comfortable with the situation, he got in touch with Evans telling him to come along and watch the fun. Evans came and watched as his mate had sex. They claim that they asked if Evans could join in, and that she said 'yes'. And the question remains........why was Evans convicted but not McDonald?

Can you provide a link to a full transcript of the trial? If not then I would be interested to know how you came across one. Perhaps you can also give an insight into how you were able to visualise the body language, tone of voice etc of all of the witnesses, which will have influenced the jury. It's rare skill.

[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
Having read various transcripts from the trial, I am amazed that the case even reached court.
The woman claimed she had had her drinks spiked, but at the trial admitted drinking two-thirds of a bottle of wine, a shot of Sambucca and four double-vodkas. Who would need to spike anything? She was plainly out to get hammered.
She wasn't even with the footballers at this time, so even if her drinks had been spiked, they weren't responsible.
She claimed to being dazed and confused yet remembers the trip to the pizza shop where she tried to playfully sneak some pizza from a guy. She bumped into McDonald near a kebab shop, and chose to remain with him for the rest of the night.
She voluntarily went back to the hotel with McDonald, and the court accepted that there was no evidence of any 'force' at any time. Her clothes were carefully removed in the hotel room, and she was naked.
"She told police: "I felt tipsy but not out of control."
Which means that she told the police she was in control. When the defence put it to her:
" "You gave no indication to either man you didn't want to have sex." "
She replied, in court:
"I don't remember."
So she admits that she doesn't know whether or not she told either of them that sex wasn't on the cards.
I can fully understand why McDonald was found 'not guilty'. CCTV showed her in his company during the evening plainly enjoying the experience, and the taxi driver reported nothing untoward. Hotel CCTV will also have supported his claim that she was there voluntarily with him. He believed she had given consent, and the jury believed him.
BTW, consent doesn't have to be verbal or in writing.
In fact, McDonald was so comfortable with the situation, he got in touch with Evans telling him to come along and watch the fun. Evans came and watched as his mate had sex. They claim that they asked if Evans could join in, and that she said 'yes'.
And the question remains........why was Evans convicted but not McDonald?[/p][/quote]Can you provide a link to a full transcript of the trial? If not then I would be interested to know how you came across one. Perhaps you can also give an insight into how you were able to visualise the body language, tone of voice etc of all of the witnesses, which will have influenced the jury. It's rare skill.Rocksalt

stevo!! wrote…

Having read various transcripts from the trial, I am amazed that the case even reached court. The woman claimed she had had her drinks spiked, but at the trial admitted drinking two-thirds of a bottle of wine, a shot of Sambucca and four double-vodkas. Who would need to spike anything? She was plainly out to get hammered. She wasn't even with the footballers at this time, so even if her drinks had been spiked, they weren't responsible. She claimed to being dazed and confused yet remembers the trip to the pizza shop where she tried to playfully sneak some pizza from a guy. She bumped into McDonald near a kebab shop, and chose to remain with him for the rest of the night. She voluntarily went back to the hotel with McDonald, and the court accepted that there was no evidence of any 'force' at any time. Her clothes were carefully removed in the hotel room, and she was naked. "She told police: "I felt tipsy but not out of control." Which means that she told the police she was in control. When the defence put it to her: " "You gave no indication to either man you didn't want to have sex." " She replied, in court: "I don't remember." So she admits that she doesn't know whether or not she told either of them that sex wasn't on the cards. I can fully understand why McDonald was found 'not guilty'. CCTV showed her in his company during the evening plainly enjoying the experience, and the taxi driver reported nothing untoward. Hotel CCTV will also have supported his claim that she was there voluntarily with him. He believed she had given consent, and the jury believed him. BTW, consent doesn't have to be verbal or in writing. In fact, McDonald was so comfortable with the situation, he got in touch with Evans telling him to come along and watch the fun. Evans came and watched as his mate had sex. They claim that they asked if Evans could join in, and that she said 'yes'. And the question remains........why was Evans convicted but not McDonald?

Can you provide a link to a full transcript of the trial? If not then I would be interested to know how you came across one. Perhaps you can also give an insight into how you were able to visualise the body language, tone of voice etc of all of the witnesses, which will have influenced the jury. It's rare skill.

Score: 2

stevo!! says...9:58pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Rocksalt wrote…

stevo!! wrote…

Having read various transcripts from the trial, I am amazed that the case even reached court. The woman claimed she had had her drinks spiked, but at the trial admitted drinking two-thirds of a bottle of wine, a shot of Sambucca and four double-vodkas. Who would need to spike anything? She was plainly out to get hammered. She wasn't even with the footballers at this time, so even if her drinks had been spiked, they weren't responsible. She claimed to being dazed and confused yet remembers the trip to the pizza shop where she tried to playfully sneak some pizza from a guy. She bumped into McDonald near a kebab shop, and chose to remain with him for the rest of the night. She voluntarily went back to the hotel with McDonald, and the court accepted that there was no evidence of any 'force' at any time. Her clothes were carefully removed in the hotel room, and she was naked. "She told police: "I felt tipsy but not out of control." Which means that she told the police she was in control. When the defence put it to her: " "You gave no indication to either man you didn't want to have sex." " She replied, in court: "I don't remember." So she admits that she doesn't know whether or not she told either of them that sex wasn't on the cards. I can fully understand why McDonald was found 'not guilty'. CCTV showed her in his company during the evening plainly enjoying the experience, and the taxi driver reported nothing untoward. Hotel CCTV will also have supported his claim that she was there voluntarily with him. He believed she had given consent, and the jury believed him. BTW, consent doesn't have to be verbal or in writing. In fact, McDonald was so comfortable with the situation, he got in touch with Evans telling him to come along and watch the fun. Evans came and watched as his mate had sex. They claim that they asked if Evans could join in, and that she said 'yes'. And the question remains........why was Evans convicted but not McDonald?

Can you provide a link to a full transcript of the trial? If not then I would be interested to know how you came across one. Perhaps you can also give an insight into how you were able to visualise the body language, tone of voice etc of all of the witnesses, which will have influenced the jury. It's rare skill.

I checked the BBC News for relevant features, and it's from there that I quoted reported comments. Try this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-wales-17781 842 And also check the related links at the foot of that page. "Perhaps you can also give an insight into how you were able to visualise the body language, tone of voice etc of all of the witnesses, which will have influenced the jury. " I haven't claimed to, so your statement is based on your own ignorance and prejudice, about which I can do nothing.

[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
Having read various transcripts from the trial, I am amazed that the case even reached court.
The woman claimed she had had her drinks spiked, but at the trial admitted drinking two-thirds of a bottle of wine, a shot of Sambucca and four double-vodkas. Who would need to spike anything? She was plainly out to get hammered.
She wasn't even with the footballers at this time, so even if her drinks had been spiked, they weren't responsible.
She claimed to being dazed and confused yet remembers the trip to the pizza shop where she tried to playfully sneak some pizza from a guy. She bumped into McDonald near a kebab shop, and chose to remain with him for the rest of the night.
She voluntarily went back to the hotel with McDonald, and the court accepted that there was no evidence of any 'force' at any time. Her clothes were carefully removed in the hotel room, and she was naked.
"She told police: "I felt tipsy but not out of control."
Which means that she told the police she was in control. When the defence put it to her:
" "You gave no indication to either man you didn't want to have sex." "
She replied, in court:
"I don't remember."
So she admits that she doesn't know whether or not she told either of them that sex wasn't on the cards.
I can fully understand why McDonald was found 'not guilty'. CCTV showed her in his company during the evening plainly enjoying the experience, and the taxi driver reported nothing untoward. Hotel CCTV will also have supported his claim that she was there voluntarily with him. He believed she had given consent, and the jury believed him.
BTW, consent doesn't have to be verbal or in writing.
In fact, McDonald was so comfortable with the situation, he got in touch with Evans telling him to come along and watch the fun. Evans came and watched as his mate had sex. They claim that they asked if Evans could join in, and that she said 'yes'.
And the question remains........why was Evans convicted but not McDonald?[/p][/quote]Can you provide a link to a full transcript of the trial? If not then I would be interested to know how you came across one. Perhaps you can also give an insight into how you were able to visualise the body language, tone of voice etc of all of the witnesses, which will have influenced the jury. It's rare skill.[/p][/quote]I checked the BBC News for relevant features, and it's from there that I quoted reported comments.
Try this link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-wales-17781
842
And also check the related links at the foot of that page.
"Perhaps you can also give an insight into how you were able to visualise the body language, tone of voice etc of all of the witnesses, which will have influenced the jury. "
I haven't claimed to, so your statement is based on your own ignorance and prejudice, about which I can do nothing.stevo!!

Rocksalt wrote…

stevo!! wrote…

Having read various transcripts from the trial, I am amazed that the case even reached court. The woman claimed she had had her drinks spiked, but at the trial admitted drinking two-thirds of a bottle of wine, a shot of Sambucca and four double-vodkas. Who would need to spike anything? She was plainly out to get hammered. She wasn't even with the footballers at this time, so even if her drinks had been spiked, they weren't responsible. She claimed to being dazed and confused yet remembers the trip to the pizza shop where she tried to playfully sneak some pizza from a guy. She bumped into McDonald near a kebab shop, and chose to remain with him for the rest of the night. She voluntarily went back to the hotel with McDonald, and the court accepted that there was no evidence of any 'force' at any time. Her clothes were carefully removed in the hotel room, and she was naked. "She told police: "I felt tipsy but not out of control." Which means that she told the police she was in control. When the defence put it to her: " "You gave no indication to either man you didn't want to have sex." " She replied, in court: "I don't remember." So she admits that she doesn't know whether or not she told either of them that sex wasn't on the cards. I can fully understand why McDonald was found 'not guilty'. CCTV showed her in his company during the evening plainly enjoying the experience, and the taxi driver reported nothing untoward. Hotel CCTV will also have supported his claim that she was there voluntarily with him. He believed she had given consent, and the jury believed him. BTW, consent doesn't have to be verbal or in writing. In fact, McDonald was so comfortable with the situation, he got in touch with Evans telling him to come along and watch the fun. Evans came and watched as his mate had sex. They claim that they asked if Evans could join in, and that she said 'yes'. And the question remains........why was Evans convicted but not McDonald?

Can you provide a link to a full transcript of the trial? If not then I would be interested to know how you came across one. Perhaps you can also give an insight into how you were able to visualise the body language, tone of voice etc of all of the witnesses, which will have influenced the jury. It's rare skill.

I checked the BBC News for relevant features, and it's from there that I quoted reported comments. Try this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-wales-17781 842 And also check the related links at the foot of that page. "Perhaps you can also give an insight into how you were able to visualise the body language, tone of voice etc of all of the witnesses, which will have influenced the jury. " I haven't claimed to, so your statement is based on your own ignorance and prejudice, about which I can do nothing.

Score: -2

Counterview says...11:32pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Despite all the waffle contained above the facts are: the case went to court; as in any case all the evidence from prosecution and defence was heard by 12 jurors; as in any case the jury considered what they had heard and delivered their verdicts. That is how the criminal justice system works. Those people on this site who think they can second guess what went on are quite simply wrong. Otherwise we may just as well have remote juries reading whatever information they can lay their hands and delivering their verdicts by Email. Utter nonsense.

Despite all the waffle contained above the facts are: the case went to court; as in any case all the evidence from prosecution and defence was heard by 12 jurors; as in any case the jury considered what they had heard and delivered their verdicts. That is how the criminal justice system works. Those people on this site who think they can second guess what went on are quite simply wrong. Otherwise we may just as well have remote juries reading whatever information they can lay their hands and delivering their verdicts by Email. Utter nonsense.Counterview

Despite all the waffle contained above the facts are: the case went to court; as in any case all the evidence from prosecution and defence was heard by 12 jurors; as in any case the jury considered what they had heard and delivered their verdicts. That is how the criminal justice system works. Those people on this site who think they can second guess what went on are quite simply wrong. Otherwise we may just as well have remote juries reading whatever information they can lay their hands and delivering their verdicts by Email. Utter nonsense.

Score: 2

stevo!! says...12:36am Thu 14 Aug 14

Counterview wrote…

Despite all the waffle contained above the facts are: the case went to court; as in any case all the evidence from prosecution and defence was heard by 12 jurors; as in any case the jury considered what they had heard and delivered their verdicts. That is how the criminal justice system works. Those people on this site who think they can second guess what went on are quite simply wrong. Otherwise we may just as well have remote juries reading whatever information they can lay their hands and delivering their verdicts by Email. Utter nonsense.

The jury proved that she had lied about claiming that McDonald had raped her, yet they believed a proven liar's claim about Evans. That fact won't go away.

[quote][p][bold]Counterview[/bold] wrote:
Despite all the waffle contained above the facts are: the case went to court; as in any case all the evidence from prosecution and defence was heard by 12 jurors; as in any case the jury considered what they had heard and delivered their verdicts. That is how the criminal justice system works. Those people on this site who think they can second guess what went on are quite simply wrong. Otherwise we may just as well have remote juries reading whatever information they can lay their hands and delivering their verdicts by Email. Utter nonsense.[/p][/quote]The jury proved that she had lied about claiming that McDonald had raped her, yet they believed a proven liar's claim about Evans.
That fact won't go away.stevo!!

Counterview wrote…

Despite all the waffle contained above the facts are: the case went to court; as in any case all the evidence from prosecution and defence was heard by 12 jurors; as in any case the jury considered what they had heard and delivered their verdicts. That is how the criminal justice system works. Those people on this site who think they can second guess what went on are quite simply wrong. Otherwise we may just as well have remote juries reading whatever information they can lay their hands and delivering their verdicts by Email. Utter nonsense.

The jury proved that she had lied about claiming that McDonald had raped her, yet they believed a proven liar's claim about Evans. That fact won't go away.

Score: 0

BelTower says...8:38am Thu 14 Aug 14

Bottom line is he was found guilty and in October will have served a sentence for that crime. He should be able to seek employment and go about his business having paid the penalty. Whether the world of professional football will welcome him back is another matter, he'll certainly get some stick that's for sure....is he ready for that? only time will tell. Either way does he not deserve a second chance.

Bottom line is he was found guilty and in October will have served a sentence for that crime. He should be able to seek employment and go about his business having paid the penalty. Whether the world of professional football will welcome him back is another matter, he'll certainly get some stick that's for sure....is he ready for that? only time will tell. Either way does he not deserve a second chance.BelTower

Bottom line is he was found guilty and in October will have served a sentence for that crime. He should be able to seek employment and go about his business having paid the penalty. Whether the world of professional football will welcome him back is another matter, he'll certainly get some stick that's for sure....is he ready for that? only time will tell. Either way does he not deserve a second chance.

Score: 2

crackoneoff says...9:27am Thu 14 Aug 14

Counterview wrote…

Despite all the waffle contained above the facts are: the case went to court; as in any case all the evidence from prosecution and defence was heard by 12 jurors; as in any case the jury considered what they had heard and delivered their verdicts. That is how the criminal justice system works. Those people on this site who think they can second guess what went on are quite simply wrong. Otherwise we may just as well have remote juries reading whatever information they can lay their hands and delivering their verdicts by Email. Utter nonsense.

I've read just about all I can read on the case and can still find no evidence of his crime. You And everyone else keep stating that he was sentenced by judge and jury. why not look up the large list of so called rapists that have been jailed and released due to mistakes that were made on behalf of the judge and jury. So please don't insult me by saying this is a watertight case coz it's not.believe me mistakes do happen not everything is 100% and the only waffle comes from your backside

[quote][p][bold]Counterview[/bold] wrote:
Despite all the waffle contained above the facts are: the case went to court; as in any case all the evidence from prosecution and defence was heard by 12 jurors; as in any case the jury considered what they had heard and delivered their verdicts. That is how the criminal justice system works. Those people on this site who think they can second guess what went on are quite simply wrong. Otherwise we may just as well have remote juries reading whatever information they can lay their hands and delivering their verdicts by Email. Utter nonsense.[/p][/quote]I've read just about all I can read on the case and can still find no evidence of his crime.
You And everyone else keep stating that he was sentenced by judge and jury.
why not look up the large list of so called rapists that have been jailed and released due to mistakes that were made on behalf of the judge and jury.
So please don't insult me by saying this is a watertight case coz it's not.believe me mistakes do happen not everything is 100% and the only waffle comes from your backsidecrackoneoff

Counterview wrote…

Despite all the waffle contained above the facts are: the case went to court; as in any case all the evidence from prosecution and defence was heard by 12 jurors; as in any case the jury considered what they had heard and delivered their verdicts. That is how the criminal justice system works. Those people on this site who think they can second guess what went on are quite simply wrong. Otherwise we may just as well have remote juries reading whatever information they can lay their hands and delivering their verdicts by Email. Utter nonsense.

I've read just about all I can read on the case and can still find no evidence of his crime. You And everyone else keep stating that he was sentenced by judge and jury. why not look up the large list of so called rapists that have been jailed and released due to mistakes that were made on behalf of the judge and jury. So please don't insult me by saying this is a watertight case coz it's not.believe me mistakes do happen not everything is 100% and the only waffle comes from your backside

Score: 2

Counterview says...10:49am Thu 14 Aug 14

Crackenhoff. Takes an arse to know one I'm afraid. You were not there. And what is more, you know absolutely nothing about the deliberations of the jury which took place in secret. I did not insult you by saying this is a "watertight" case. That word is a total figment of your imagination. You may have an opinion on what you have read. I repeat you do not know the totality of the facts. Nor do I. Incidentally, have you ever sat on a jury?

Crackenhoff. Takes an arse to know one I'm afraid. You were not there. And what is more, you know absolutely nothing about the deliberations of the jury which took place in secret. I did not insult you by saying this is a "watertight" case. That word is a total figment of your imagination. You may have an opinion on what you have read. I repeat you do not know the totality of the facts. Nor do I. Incidentally, have you ever sat on a jury?Counterview

Crackenhoff. Takes an arse to know one I'm afraid. You were not there. And what is more, you know absolutely nothing about the deliberations of the jury which took place in secret. I did not insult you by saying this is a "watertight" case. That word is a total figment of your imagination. You may have an opinion on what you have read. I repeat you do not know the totality of the facts. Nor do I. Incidentally, have you ever sat on a jury?

Score: 0

stevo!! says...12:36pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Counterview wrote…

Crackenhoff. Takes an arse to know one I'm afraid. You were not there. And what is more, you know absolutely nothing about the deliberations of the jury which took place in secret. I did not insult you by saying this is a "watertight" case. That word is a total figment of your imagination. You may have an opinion on what you have read. I repeat you do not know the totality of the facts. Nor do I. Incidentally, have you ever sat on a jury?

So you accept that the case wasn't watertight. That's because it clearly wasn't. There was too much consent given by the victim for it to be proven against McDonald, and the jury informed us that she had lied. What I cannot understand is why that same jury believed the word of a proven liar who makes false allegations of rape in convicting Evans. As I said ages ago, they were either both guilty or both innocent, and THAT is what stinks about the conviction.

[quote][p][bold]Counterview[/bold] wrote:
Crackenhoff. Takes an arse to know one I'm afraid. You were not there. And what is more, you know absolutely nothing about the deliberations of the jury which took place in secret. I did not insult you by saying this is a "watertight" case. That word is a total figment of your imagination. You may have an opinion on what you have read. I repeat you do not know the totality of the facts. Nor do I. Incidentally, have you ever sat on a jury?[/p][/quote]So you accept that the case wasn't watertight.
That's because it clearly wasn't.
There was too much consent given by the victim for it to be proven against McDonald, and the jury informed us that she had lied.
What I cannot understand is why that same jury believed the word of a proven liar who makes false allegations of rape in convicting Evans.
As I said ages ago, they were either both guilty or both innocent, and THAT is what stinks about the conviction.stevo!!

Counterview wrote…

Crackenhoff. Takes an arse to know one I'm afraid. You were not there. And what is more, you know absolutely nothing about the deliberations of the jury which took place in secret. I did not insult you by saying this is a "watertight" case. That word is a total figment of your imagination. You may have an opinion on what you have read. I repeat you do not know the totality of the facts. Nor do I. Incidentally, have you ever sat on a jury?

So you accept that the case wasn't watertight. That's because it clearly wasn't. There was too much consent given by the victim for it to be proven against McDonald, and the jury informed us that she had lied. What I cannot understand is why that same jury believed the word of a proven liar who makes false allegations of rape in convicting Evans. As I said ages ago, they were either both guilty or both innocent, and THAT is what stinks about the conviction.

Score: 0

Counterview says...6:24pm Thu 14 Aug 14

I am amazed by the comments on what I have been deemed to have said or not said. These same people have expressed views about the outcome of the trial when they were not there - on the basis of court transcripts. First, Crackenhoff stated quite clearly " don't insult me by saying this a watertight case". I told him that I had not and the "watertight" word was a figment of his imagination. Since then, he has not refuted that. Second, on the basis of the above statement I am then told that I accept the case was not watertight. Utter rubbish. These people, who have twisted and distorted facts about what I have said, both have the temerity to express opinions on the outcome of a case where they were not present. What I have said on this thread is very little compared to a court transcript. They have got that completely wrong. On that basis alone, their credibility is scarcely sky high. To repeat. I have never said one jot about the case detail itself. Only about the judicial process. Crackenhoff has not said whether he/she has ever undertaken jury service. Will Stevo be prepared to answer that specific question?

I am amazed by the comments on what I have been deemed to have said or not said. These same people have expressed views about the outcome of the trial when they were not there - on the basis of court transcripts.
First, Crackenhoff stated quite clearly " don't insult me by saying this a watertight case". I told him that I had not and the "watertight" word was a figment of his imagination. Since then, he has not refuted that.
Second, on the basis of the above statement I am then told that I accept the case was not watertight. Utter rubbish.
These people, who have twisted and distorted facts about what I have said, both have the temerity to express opinions on the outcome of a case where they were not present. What I have said on this thread is very little compared to a court transcript. They have got that completely wrong. On that basis alone, their credibility is scarcely sky high.
To repeat. I have never said one jot about the case detail itself. Only about the judicial process. Crackenhoff has not said whether he/she has ever undertaken jury service. Will Stevo be prepared to answer that specific question?Counterview

I am amazed by the comments on what I have been deemed to have said or not said. These same people have expressed views about the outcome of the trial when they were not there - on the basis of court transcripts. First, Crackenhoff stated quite clearly " don't insult me by saying this a watertight case". I told him that I had not and the "watertight" word was a figment of his imagination. Since then, he has not refuted that. Second, on the basis of the above statement I am then told that I accept the case was not watertight. Utter rubbish. These people, who have twisted and distorted facts about what I have said, both have the temerity to express opinions on the outcome of a case where they were not present. What I have said on this thread is very little compared to a court transcript. They have got that completely wrong. On that basis alone, their credibility is scarcely sky high. To repeat. I have never said one jot about the case detail itself. Only about the judicial process. Crackenhoff has not said whether he/she has ever undertaken jury service. Will Stevo be prepared to answer that specific question?

Score: 0

stevo!! says...6:32pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Counterview wrote…

I am amazed by the comments on what I have been deemed to have said or not said. These same people have expressed views about the outcome of the trial when they were not there - on the basis of court transcripts. First, Crackenhoff stated quite clearly " don't insult me by saying this a watertight case". I told him that I had not and the "watertight" word was a figment of his imagination. Since then, he has not refuted that. Second, on the basis of the above statement I am then told that I accept the case was not watertight. Utter rubbish. These people, who have twisted and distorted facts about what I have said, both have the temerity to express opinions on the outcome of a case where they were not present. What I have said on this thread is very little compared to a court transcript. They have got that completely wrong. On that basis alone, their credibility is scarcely sky high. To repeat. I have never said one jot about the case detail itself. Only about the judicial process. Crackenhoff has not said whether he/she has ever undertaken jury service. Will Stevo be prepared to answer that specific question?

Which question? State it clearly, and I shall try to answer.

[quote][p][bold]Counterview[/bold] wrote:
I am amazed by the comments on what I have been deemed to have said or not said. These same people have expressed views about the outcome of the trial when they were not there - on the basis of court transcripts.
First, Crackenhoff stated quite clearly " don't insult me by saying this a watertight case". I told him that I had not and the "watertight" word was a figment of his imagination. Since then, he has not refuted that.
Second, on the basis of the above statement I am then told that I accept the case was not watertight. Utter rubbish.
These people, who have twisted and distorted facts about what I have said, both have the temerity to express opinions on the outcome of a case where they were not present. What I have said on this thread is very little compared to a court transcript. They have got that completely wrong. On that basis alone, their credibility is scarcely sky high.
To repeat. I have never said one jot about the case detail itself. Only about the judicial process. Crackenhoff has not said whether he/she has ever undertaken jury service. Will Stevo be prepared to answer that specific question?[/p][/quote]Which question?
State it clearly, and I shall try to answer.stevo!!

Counterview wrote…

I am amazed by the comments on what I have been deemed to have said or not said. These same people have expressed views about the outcome of the trial when they were not there - on the basis of court transcripts. First, Crackenhoff stated quite clearly " don't insult me by saying this a watertight case". I told him that I had not and the "watertight" word was a figment of his imagination. Since then, he has not refuted that. Second, on the basis of the above statement I am then told that I accept the case was not watertight. Utter rubbish. These people, who have twisted and distorted facts about what I have said, both have the temerity to express opinions on the outcome of a case where they were not present. What I have said on this thread is very little compared to a court transcript. They have got that completely wrong. On that basis alone, their credibility is scarcely sky high. To repeat. I have never said one jot about the case detail itself. Only about the judicial process. Crackenhoff has not said whether he/she has ever undertaken jury service. Will Stevo be prepared to answer that specific question?

Which question? State it clearly, and I shall try to answer.

Score: 0

Counterview says...8:11pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Stevo. Clearly - Have you ever served on a jury? ie the question Crackenhoff has not answered. One additional question. Tell the readership exactly where I have said -or even accepted - the case was not watertight.

Stevo. Clearly - Have you ever served on a jury? ie the question Crackenhoff has not answered.
One additional question. Tell the readership exactly where I have said -or even accepted - the case was not watertight.Counterview

Stevo. Clearly - Have you ever served on a jury? ie the question Crackenhoff has not answered. One additional question. Tell the readership exactly where I have said -or even accepted - the case was not watertight.

Score: 0

stevo!! says...8:39pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Counterview wrote…

Stevo. Clearly - Have you ever served on a jury? ie the question Crackenhoff has not answered. One additional question. Tell the readership exactly where I have said -or even accepted - the case was not watertight.

"Have you ever served on a jury?" Irrelevant question to the topic, sorry. " One additional question. Tell the readership exactly where I have said -or even accepted - the case was not watertight." That isn't a question, sorry. You did write: " I did not insult you by saying this is a "watertight" case. That word is a total figment of your imagination." Feel free to clarify as to whether or not you consider the case against both men to be watertight. I certainly don't consider it to have been and I was proven right on that.

[quote][p][bold]Counterview[/bold] wrote:
Stevo. Clearly - Have you ever served on a jury? ie the question Crackenhoff has not answered.
One additional question. Tell the readership exactly where I have said -or even accepted - the case was not watertight.[/p][/quote]"Have you ever served on a jury?"
Irrelevant question to the topic, sorry.
" One additional question. Tell the readership exactly where I have said -or even accepted - the case was not watertight."
That isn't a question, sorry.
You did write:
" I did not insult you by saying this is a "watertight" case. That word is a total figment of your imagination."
Feel free to clarify as to whether or not you consider the case against both men to be watertight. I certainly don't consider it to have been and I was proven right on that.stevo!!

Counterview wrote…

Stevo. Clearly - Have you ever served on a jury? ie the question Crackenhoff has not answered. One additional question. Tell the readership exactly where I have said -or even accepted - the case was not watertight.

"Have you ever served on a jury?" Irrelevant question to the topic, sorry. " One additional question. Tell the readership exactly where I have said -or even accepted - the case was not watertight." That isn't a question, sorry. You did write: " I did not insult you by saying this is a "watertight" case. That word is a total figment of your imagination." Feel free to clarify as to whether or not you consider the case against both men to be watertight. I certainly don't consider it to have been and I was proven right on that.

Score: 0

Counterview says...10:16pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Stevo. Your logic is astounding. I will remind you of your words " so you accept that the case wasn't watertight" Followed by "feel free to clarify as to whether or not you consider the case against both men to be watertight" Why the second invitation when you have made the earlier assertion.? Your refusal to answer my jury question amounts to more evasion. I'm certainly not going to enter into further communication on this as you have already tied yourself in knots. I have absolutely no comment to make on my "view" of the case. I know nothing of the case detail and have never claimed to. Your ridiculous assertion above can be checked back against a complete transcript of every word I have typed. One final point. Were you in a court of law making the first allegation followed by your second invitation, any half decent lawyer would completely and utterly demolish you. Good bye

Stevo. Your logic is astounding. I will remind you of your words " so you accept that the case wasn't watertight"
Followed by "feel free to clarify as to whether or not you consider the case against both men to be watertight"
Why the second invitation when you have made the earlier assertion.?
Your refusal to answer my jury question amounts to more evasion.
I'm certainly not going to enter into further communication on this as you have already tied yourself in knots. I have absolutely no comment to make on my "view" of the case. I know nothing of the case detail and have never claimed to. Your ridiculous assertion above can be checked back against a complete transcript of every word I have typed.
One final point. Were you in a court of law making the first allegation followed by your second invitation, any half decent lawyer would completely and utterly demolish you.
Good byeCounterview

Stevo. Your logic is astounding. I will remind you of your words " so you accept that the case wasn't watertight" Followed by "feel free to clarify as to whether or not you consider the case against both men to be watertight" Why the second invitation when you have made the earlier assertion.? Your refusal to answer my jury question amounts to more evasion. I'm certainly not going to enter into further communication on this as you have already tied yourself in knots. I have absolutely no comment to make on my "view" of the case. I know nothing of the case detail and have never claimed to. Your ridiculous assertion above can be checked back against a complete transcript of every word I have typed. One final point. Were you in a court of law making the first allegation followed by your second invitation, any half decent lawyer would completely and utterly demolish you. Good bye

Score: 0

stevo!! says...10:32pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Counterview wrote…

Stevo. Your logic is astounding. I will remind you of your words " so you accept that the case wasn't watertight" Followed by "feel free to clarify as to whether or not you consider the case against both men to be watertight" Why the second invitation when you have made the earlier assertion.? Your refusal to answer my jury question amounts to more evasion. I'm certainly not going to enter into further communication on this as you have already tied yourself in knots. I have absolutely no comment to make on my "view" of the case. I know nothing of the case detail and have never claimed to. Your ridiculous assertion above can be checked back against a complete transcript of every word I have typed. One final point. Were you in a court of law making the first allegation followed by your second invitation, any half decent lawyer would completely and utterly demolish you. Good bye

So you've decided that you have no idea as to whether or not the case was watertight. Thank you for clarifying that that simple thing was beyond your capabilities.

[quote][p][bold]Counterview[/bold] wrote:
Stevo. Your logic is astounding. I will remind you of your words " so you accept that the case wasn't watertight"
Followed by "feel free to clarify as to whether or not you consider the case against both men to be watertight"
Why the second invitation when you have made the earlier assertion.?
Your refusal to answer my jury question amounts to more evasion.
I'm certainly not going to enter into further communication on this as you have already tied yourself in knots. I have absolutely no comment to make on my "view" of the case. I know nothing of the case detail and have never claimed to. Your ridiculous assertion above can be checked back against a complete transcript of every word I have typed.
One final point. Were you in a court of law making the first allegation followed by your second invitation, any half decent lawyer would completely and utterly demolish you.
Good bye[/p][/quote]So you've decided that you have no idea as to whether or not the case was watertight.
Thank you for clarifying that that simple thing was beyond your capabilities.stevo!!

Counterview wrote…

Stevo. Your logic is astounding. I will remind you of your words " so you accept that the case wasn't watertight" Followed by "feel free to clarify as to whether or not you consider the case against both men to be watertight" Why the second invitation when you have made the earlier assertion.? Your refusal to answer my jury question amounts to more evasion. I'm certainly not going to enter into further communication on this as you have already tied yourself in knots. I have absolutely no comment to make on my "view" of the case. I know nothing of the case detail and have never claimed to. Your ridiculous assertion above can be checked back against a complete transcript of every word I have typed. One final point. Were you in a court of law making the first allegation followed by your second invitation, any half decent lawyer would completely and utterly demolish you. Good bye

So you've decided that you have no idea as to whether or not the case was watertight. Thank you for clarifying that that simple thing was beyond your capabilities.

Score: 1

notslimjim says...3:23pm Fri 15 Aug 14

I cannot see how the case against McDonald came to court. She was on camera in his company showing no sign of duress, there was no force, and she went back to his place, not vice versa. The only possible reason is can see why Evans was charged is that he admitted turning up later, no matter how he obtained entry to that room, but even then, there is nothing to suggest that the victim denied consent.

I cannot see how the case against McDonald came to court.
She was on camera in his company showing no sign of duress, there was no force, and she went back to his place, not vice versa.
The only possible reason is can see why Evans was charged is that he admitted turning up later, no matter how he obtained entry to that room, but even then, there is nothing to suggest that the victim denied consent.notslimjim

I cannot see how the case against McDonald came to court. She was on camera in his company showing no sign of duress, there was no force, and she went back to his place, not vice versa. The only possible reason is can see why Evans was charged is that he admitted turning up later, no matter how he obtained entry to that room, but even then, there is nothing to suggest that the victim denied consent.

Score: 0

Sorry, an error occurred.

Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the 'report this post' link.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here